Metamorphosis

Being a big fan of Christopher Lambert and of "traditional" type Vampires, I was delighted to hear a couple of years ago that 'Metamorphosis' was happening.

Although the writers of 'Metamorphosis' were enthusiastic to portray an "original" take on Vampirism like most modern movies featuring our fanged friends do, they are still beautiful, genteel ladies and gentlemen and not a street-gang speaking in "cool" Buffy-type slang.

Mostly shot in Hungary straight after Lambert's 'Day of Wrath,' Christopher clearly enjoys playing the bad guy here, and gives us a performance that I would describe as Lord Rayden in a nastier mood. As usual, his character is a mix of dark and light, but I wish the script had allowed a bit more of an insight into his character as the write-up on the official site indicated there might be.

Irena A. Hoffman is everything you could want in a seductive Vampire, and I look forward to seeing her in other things. Scenes with her or Lambert as the main focus are certainly the most enjoyable in the movie, as the three American tourists (in real life, one Canadian, and two English) aren't very interesting.

Corey Sevier is adequate as Keith, but Jennifer Higham and particularly Charlie Hollway are stuck playing irritating, unfunny characters.

The rest of the cast is filled out by some suitable looking Hungarians, and the production is assisted by the use of genuine medieval locations.

Metamorphosis is a little light on blood and Vampire action, and struggles a bit to keep it's plot moving, but I enjoyed it.

Abysmal. Horrible. Plain awful. These are just a few words that come to my mind when I think of this movie.

Let's take a closer look:

ACTING - practically non-existent, wooden,amateurish overacting;

ACTORS - horrible 1990s choice of actors and characters (three utterly annoying American tourists) and Christopher Lambert. Yes, that Christopher Lambert, who once was a big star (don't ask me how he ended up in this piece of junk);

PLOT - makes little or no sense (not to mention the terrible distortion of historical reality and truth);

SETTING - probably the only positive think in the whole film;

ENDING - clear and predictable after some 30 minutes into the film; etc.

I could go on and on, but there's no point to. It's simply one horrible horrible film which should never have been made. And Mr. Lambert should fire his agent ASAP and start making decent films again.

If I could have given negative stars, I would have. WHY, Mr. Lambert, did you choose to do this?!? Please, fire your agent.

I won't bother detailing any of the story line, because I fear that some poor soul might decide it was worth watching. Suffice to say that a high school creative fiction writing class could have come up with a better story. The AV club could have made a better attempt at filming it, in fact.

There should be a law against movies this bad. Or, at least stiff penalties for having the gall to call this "entertainment."

The acting was HORRIBLE. The plot was AWFUL. There was NOTHING redeemable about this waste of time at all.

I think I'd rather have a root canal. Or chew glass.

I've seen films shot using phome cameras that are better than this. This was just a BAD movie. The acting was terrible. What was Christopher Lambert thinking. Not that he's a critically accalaimed actor or anything. The writing was terrible. Scenes were stitched together with some not making any sense in sequence of events. I love vampire movies and some of them are pretty cheesy but entertaining at least. Not this film.

This movie isn't too bad, at least the special effects and plot were on par to its competition. The only sad note about this film is something that plagues many could've been good movies... bad acting.

I don't know how Corey Sevier, the lead male actor, has received so many parts in his acting career; his acting is just plain stale and contrived. His role started out OK, but I'm not sure why the director didn't do his job; i.e., inform the actors when their skills aren't up to snuff. The kid tries, but I think too hard and the result is painfully artificial. The worst part was when he detailing some history he had researched, but the way he spoke of it was like he had been there and experienced it. Just stupid. Oh yeah, I don't know too many historians doing this type of research who appear like they've walked off the beach. Who cast this guy in the role, it should have been someone more fitting and collegiate for the role.

The second acting faux pas was the Nickelodeon-acting provided by Jennifer Higham. I've seen much better talent at a Jr. High play. Where do they screen these people? Her acting, if you want to call it that, was so off-the-cuff that you would've thought she was trying to make it seem like a joke. Jennifer, you need to not only memorize your lines by get in-character when you read them; i.e., make it at least a little realistic! Overall, given it's shortcomings in the acting department, the movie wasn't too bad, though was a bit quirky at points. If you like vampire films you might want to check this one out, though prep yourself for some B-C grade acting with the leads (Irena Hoffman did much better & hot too!).